Archives

1

Welcome!

Hello, Xtzou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! PWdiamond 20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Xtzou (Talk) 20:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, your edits have done no harm to the article, actually quite to the contrary, I like your edits and hope you'll continue! ;P --TIAYN (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review; all comments have been adressed. --TIAYN (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've fixed it. Question; do i need to post this here? --TIAYN (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can post replies about the article on Talk:Leonid Brezhnev/GA1. Xtzou (Talk) 09:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. You may have used more time than expected on the review, but thats not a bad thing, it only proves that you have done a good job. :) --TIAYN (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have expanded the article a bit, but I'm not sure if I included everything that you wanted. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead and added another source that I found. Please let me know if you have any more concerns. Thanks again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation box is a great idea--I was having a hard time figuring out how to capture the message from the WWE site while maintaining neutrality, but that works really well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xtzou. You have new messages at Talk:HZ-1 Aerocycle/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Xtzou (Talk) 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've left a reply and I've ordered some books from the library to chase up your outstanding point about sourcing commentary on the widespread use of his images. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to raise. Shimgray | talk | 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, great! In general, it is a fine article. Xtzou (Talk) 22:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly! The library books are still winding their way through the system, so I'll get them incorporated later as well. Shimgray | talk |

Hey Xtzou, I noticed you put that template in the wood turtle article that places the GA logo in the top right corner. I've never seen that before, is it common?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently decided by consensus that the GA symbol would be used for article that had passed GA. See part of the discussion at GAN - Good article template. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 20:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cool.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering...do you know who normally does the Geography/Places reviews? I have seen several on there for a couple weeks (some almost a month) and it seems other sections are getting attention, but not Geography/Places. Are there some more editors that could be rounded up to clear up the backlog on GAN as well? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can review a GAN. There is no one person who is assigned to produce reviews for a particular section. Reviews are dependent solely on the willingness of individual editors to review specific articles. I know for me many factors go into selecting an article to review. Does that answer your question? Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup :) I thought reviewers were assigned certain areas based on knowledge of the subject. Like people who knew mold, spors and fungi would review those, for example. That is how I thought it went. :) Learned something new today. Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know for me selection of an article to review is dependent on how well the article is written and my judgment of how willing the editor is to take advice. If an article is quite far from bening a GA, I will usually avoid it. Xtzou (Talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have had GAN on my watchlist long enough to see some of the people who aren't willing to take advice. I, on the other hand, worked with others on the advice my last reviewer gave (about a year and a half ago). So I take advice seriously (just so you know) :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, familiarity with a certain category of articles also plays a role. The last time I reviewed an article from Geography/Places, I got grief as another editor challenged my passing of an article. So, I will be very carefull about selecting someting from that category in the future. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 00:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha :) I will be honest, I haven't reviewed an article cause I don't know many subjects. They don't have articles to review about radio stations. :) That is my area of expertise. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the time and effort you put into editing The Killer article. It's greatly appreciated! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. It was a pleasure learning about the film. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xtzou. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Xtzou (Talk) 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One more talkback on my talk page, same link as before. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With your help, together we brought the Stephens City, Virginia article to Good Article status. May I be the first to award you the following userbox and thank you for helping me on this article. I look forward to working with you in the future as I move the article closer to Featured Article status.

This user helped promote Stephens City, Virginia to good article status.

Again....Thank You! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was a pleasure. Xtzou (Talk) 23:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to burden you with endless article reviews, but if you could take a look at Kent, Ohio, it's been on hold for 3 days after a 3 week wait for a review. I would appreciate any comments if you have the time. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted the editor who put it on hold? Sometimes RL interferes for a few days. Another editor can't step in and take over the review unless it is clear that the original reviewer has deserted his post. So some length of time has to pass. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Yes, I'm still interested in the nomination. I was off-wiki all Memorial Day weekend, so I just got your message today. I'll try to address the issues in a day or two. Thanks for your review and your patience. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Xtzou (Talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. It's been one of those weeks. I've combined some paragraphs and added some headings to the article. Let me know if these changes are not sufficient. Also, be advised that I will be off-wiki again this weekend, so if further action is needed, it may be early next week before I can address it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. It is a GA now. Xtzou (Talk) 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xtzou. You have new messages at Talk:Stephens City, Virginia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was aware that the link belongs under external links but have seen articles without such a section put them to another low section. Do you think an external link should be put in now (and which one), otherwise someone will think their browser is broken since the space directly under the heading is empty, or not? Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking of removing the "External links" heading (since there are no external links), but still leaving the commons cat at the bottom. As I remember, the rationale for having it there, rather than elsewhere, is that clicking on it essentially sends a reader away from wikipedia.org and so a link to the Commons should not be mixed with internal links that don't take the reader away from wikipedia.org. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Hekerui (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate those enormous curly quotes in the article for the quoteboxes . They really screw up the format in my browser. What do you you think? Xtzou (Talk) 19:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're that bad, but you could start a discussion on the talk page. Btw have you been an editor before? For someone who only registered in March you are quite proficient! Hekerui (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't then I won't bother. Thanks for your input. Yes, I have been an editor before. Xtzou (Talk) 22:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As who? Perhaps I remember :) Hekerui (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have begun a review of your GA nomination and have entered some comments at Talk:Chuck Berry/GA1. Feel free to ask me questions. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I've made some ammendments and left comments for you. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 22:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would like to see this article get it together. I have responded on the GA review page. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for best edit summary: 'getting rid of a "thus" - always a good moment' HAR! Fliponymous (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Xtzou (Talk) 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you start rewording, such as what you are doing to 2010 Autism Speaks 400, does it mean that you will soon check it for GA-Status? I was just wondering.--Nascar1996 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if someone else doesn't do it first! Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for reviewing the articles! --Nascar1996 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Please do not remove the internal anchored links from the article. Such links are perfectly fine, and all of the other knowledgable editors who (like me) have been working on the article for weeks are in support of their existence. You appear to be confusing these links with links that are used as references, which are entirely different. Cgingold (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the reviews. I have responded to your comment on my talk page, and at Talk:Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/GA1. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there also. I don't wish to cause you trouble and I think you are a very good writer. Perhaps this article can be sharped a bit, and benefit from that. Xtzou (Talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I definitely agree. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I responded on the review page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. Xtzou (Talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Thank you for the countless GA reviews you have done, as well as your tireless efforts as an editor. I noticed that you completed multiple reviews simultaneously. This is truly remarkable, especially since they were all done throughly and with a great understanding of the GA criteria. Thanks to you, the backlog has been significantly reduced at GAR, and I am grateful that I have not had to wait months for a review since you began editing. I must also note that you are a very pleasant editor to work with and your copyediting skills are exceptional. I hope you will be able to come back soon, and when you do, let me know if you have an article that you'd like for me to review, so I can return the favor. Regards, William S. Saturn (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I always try to do my best for the encyclopedia. Xtzou (Talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xtzou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've done no harm to the encyclopedia or to any other editor in the 10,000 edits I have made. I've tried to be as helpful as I can be in every way. To block me indefinitely only means that I can't ever contribute to Wikipedia again. Please reconsider.

Decline reason:

You have, as Mattisse, at least 31 socks, not including this one. Whether you have done harm with this specific sock is wholly beside the point. You cannot be trusted. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please forgive me if I have filled out this request wrong. I can't figure out how to do it right and use the template correctly. Xtzou (Talk) 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that right now would be a good time to answer the question posed above by Hekerui. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reviewing admins: Xtzou/Mattisse has now submitted an unblock request that has been forwarded to Arbcom (specifically the Block/Ban Appeal Subcommittee) for review. You may also find the discussion of this block on my own talk page to be of interest and value in determining next steps. Risker (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::I formerly edited as Mattisse. I tried to get away from the Mattisse identity, as Mattisse made mistakes in the past which will always be repeatedly raised as if they are present events. There is no way Mattisse can ever exist again. Too many old hard feelings against her that will last forever. I have never made bad edits or vandalized. But as Mattisse, I alienated a handful of editors and will never be forgiven. Mattisse cannot edit her own talk page and has no voice. She does not exist any more. Xtzou (Talk) 14:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to have removed from Mattisse's sockpuppet record those names that were never verified by Checkuser as socks, and also those socks that were used within sockpuppet policy and did not break any rules. Sockpuppets are allowed. Many well know editors have them. I don't understand why others are allowed sockpuppets and I am not. Xtzou (Talk) 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that I was persecuted by a few editors that had a lot of power. The socks look worse than the reality. When I started editing in 2006 I did not understand the sockpuppet policy and also did not have full control over my computer. After than, any socks I created were as a relief from the stalking and harassment that I experienced. None of them broke any rules regarding sockpuppets. They did not vandalize, stack votes, or edit the same articles. Further, there are socks attributed to me that were never verified by Checkuser. Most of my socks made a few edits, some made none. There was was "feeding frenzy" to attribute as many socks to me as possible, regardless of accuracy. I may have voiced views that were unpopular to powerful editors, I admit. Xtzou (Talk) 19:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]